bengrace50

Originally posted by 聖里斯 at 2005-8-24 10:39:
我自己的屬會有位阿姐小時候是契了觀...

唔好理呢d野，佛教無呢d野。 這是民間的迷信。

tickliu

佛教裡面緊係冇"過契"呢樣o野la，只不過係d(俗世人)攪出來姐，同埋"觀音借庫"呢家呢家o野都唔係真，果d人所講o既o野，唔係正信。
佛教好多野都比人曲解，然後加以利用，唉，究竟d人幾時先至醒吾呢，唔係話拜得佛多、裝多幾住香、佛就會保佑、如果一心為名為利，只求欲望，念幾萬次經都冇用la，d人成日話佛即是神，緊係錯la，佛唔係神，只是一個道理，如果你真係醒吾左，你都可以成佛，眾生皆可成佛，亞貓亞狗，蛇蟲鼠蟻，個個都可以成佛。

BEN兄，你係唔係皈依左ga，如果世上多d人好似你咁就好lo，多d人明白佛教，咁就唔使成日比人話，比人利用la。

bengrace50

Originally posted by tickliu at 2005-8-24 21:05:
佛教好多野都比人曲解，然後加以利用，唉，究竟d人幾時先至醒吾呢，唔係話拜得佛多、裝多幾住香、佛就會保佑、如果一心為名為利，只求欲望，念幾萬次經都冇用la，d人成日話佛即是神，緊係錯la，佛唔係神，只是一個道理，如果你真係醒吾左，你都可以成佛，眾生皆可成佛，亞貓亞狗，蛇蟲鼠蟻，個個都可以成佛。

係d人想利用佛教來搵錢嗎，其實最簡單方法就是如果那個道場是出家人來主持的就好穩陣，如果不是就要小心。 當然也有好似佛教青年協會的佛教團體，但他們都會請法師做會長。

佛是覺醒了脫離三界的聖者。  不單是道理，如果講是道理，佛法才是道理。 法是出世間的法則。所以佛法的法是法則的法，不是法術的法。

BEN兄，你係唔係皈依左ga，如果世上多d人好似你咁就好lo，多d人明白佛教，咁就唔使成日比人話，比人利用la。

我已受了菩薩戒，所以弘法是我的責任。  護持正法是所有佛弟子之責。 咁你呢？

tickliu

我冇皈依ar，亞媽係居士，修禪的，佢都叫我皈依，我咪同佢講我唔皈依lo，因為我都唔學佛，要我穿袍念經就怕怕lo，我叫佢比心機學佛，去淨土先lo，而我仲有排係六道之中走來走去，不過冇所謂，不變隨緣，隨緣不變ma。
我間中都會睇下一d佛教書藉，佛經講義，星期日聽下常通法師係講下電台節目(因為佢係亞媽o既師傅，要捧場喎....)。我唔知信佛係唔係即是學佛ar，只不過我覺得佛法裡面都有好多道理，都幾 o岩key咁 lo。總之冇做壞事，心安理得，凡事隨緣不強求，開開心心，去到邊都可以係淨土la，要我去佛淨土就咪攪lo，因為我好怕讀書。
Ben兄你受左菩薩戒就真係比心機la，不過要係呢個五俗惡世度弘法就真係好困難lo，因為唔係個個都會真係明白同接受lo，而且仲有帝釋天呢，佢地係呢個世界o既勢力都好大ga，仲成日同你地作對tim。你受左菩薩戒咪唔可以成佛lo，不過冇所謂la，都係一樣姐^^

bengrace50

Originally posted by tickliu at 2005-8-25 00:16:
我冇皈依ar，亞媽係居士，修禪的，佢都叫我皈依，我咪同佢講我唔皈依lo，因為我都唔學佛，要我穿袍念經就怕怕lo，我叫佢比心機學佛，去淨土先lo，而我仲有排係六道之中走來走去，不過冇所謂，不變隨緣，隨緣不變ma。

『不變隨緣，隨緣不變』不是咁解，這句說話的含意是隨緣來度眾生咁解。唔係叫你乜都唔好變。 你媽是佛教徒咁好緣份你都唔學佛就真的浪費了你今生的機緣。  好肯定你不只一生積下的佛緣善根種子才可以出世在佛法之家。你現在還未成熟，但肯定將來是有機會信佛的。

我間中都會睇下一d佛教書藉，佛經講義，星期日聽下常通法師係講下電台節目(因為佢係亞媽o既師傅，要捧場喎....)。我唔知信佛係唔係即是學佛ar，只不過我覺得佛法裡面都有好多道理，都幾 o岩key咁 lo。總之冇做壞事，心安理得，凡事隨緣不強求，開開心心，去到邊都可以係淨土la，要我去佛淨土就咪攪lo，因為我好怕讀書。

你媽是常通法師的弟子，咁你們是否是住沙田的呢？
去淨土你怕讀書？  佛法在我們的世界只有原先不知幾多份之幾的法門。到淨土那裡之後由阿彌陀佛、觀音菩薩等親自教你，如果你是怕讀書的話，他們就有你喜歡的方法去教你，你還怕乜。 在那裡只有快樂。  你現在不想去，只是你還未遇上你真正的痛苦，你想想，你有喜歡的人嗎？ 他們會離開你。 你有想要但得不到的事嗎？  你有不想做但一定要做的事嗎？ 還有無量的苦。 你現在開心，但總有一日會失去。但在淨土就一定無這些事。

Ben兄你受左菩薩戒就真係比心機la，不過要係呢個五俗惡世度弘法就真係好困難lo，因為唔係個個都會真係明白同接受lo，而且仲有帝釋天呢，佢地係呢個世界o既勢力都好大ga，仲成日同你地作對tim。你受左菩薩戒咪唔可以成佛lo，不過冇所謂la，都係一樣姐^^

你就錯了，不受菩薩戒就不能入菩薩道，即是不能成菩薩。不能成菩薩就一定不能成佛。

聖里斯

tickliu：
我還以為有"過契"的
原來你都有聽常通法師的覺海清泉，我每個星期日都有聽，過已經完了好幾個星期了。現在已經沒有這個節目了。

mememe

silverxing兄,

因公事煩忙﹐延遲回覆﹐敬請原諒。

silverxing

take your time, I won't be here everyday neither.

mememe

silverxing兄,

唔。。。我究竟應唔應該用英文作答呢?

you have provide no evidence whatsoever.....

For your so-called evidence, the analogy of tomatoes,

即係呢﹐如果你對我俾既證據唔滿意既話﹐0甘就即係等同我冇俾到任何證據? 你仲好意思話我同你一樣冇俾證據既?

讀哲學既果然不同凡響 - 讀三個paragraph就有矛盾。

justin_lun already said the following words in the very first few posts, "God created us to be servant and take care of this world." He even provide Bible verse for support, and if you read page 5 of this forum carefully, shinge1233 ask justin_lun the usage of freedom of will, justin_lun answered, "God give us free will to let us take care of this world more efficiently." He's talking about "why God give us free will", not "why human have free will". And as Christian, justin_lun only answer of "why human have free will" is "because God give it to us".

係噃! 真係頭幾個帖噃! 你講緊既係0響我都未出聲之前﹐justin_lun兄同第二個人討論緊0的同我之後既帖一0的關係都冇既論點。

http://www.26fun.com/bbs/viewthr ... 6%E5%92%8C%E8%8F%AF

你睇唔睇到我係第十七個帖先開聲﹐而我講既0野係有關"全知","全能",和"造物主"的規限內依然可以存在真正自由既自由意志。對于點解神俾自由意志人呢點﹐我好似冇俾到意見噃。

我同justin_lun兄既討論從來未踏足過點解神俾自由意志人呢點﹐你要求我覆述時竟然質疑點解我唔帶出呢點﹐你有冇覺得你既評語有0的無聊?

For your so-called evidence, the analogy of tomatoes, justin_lun reply, "there're way too many unknown reason for why the tomatoes can't grow, there's no such thing as given certain resource and the outcome will be unchanged." What justin_lun is talking here is why Fatalism is wrong, it has NOTHING to do with free will. You evidence doesn't even match the topic.

如果你認為justin_lun兄講既0野(即你所講既”why Fatalism is wrong”)同自由意志冇任何關係﹐你好明顯冇睇到我寫既全部帖。請覆述我既論點 -尤其有關"全知","全能",和"造物主"的規限內依然可以存在真正自由既自由意志。

喺你再批評任何嘢之前﹐我再次要求你覆述我既論點。你既評語顯出你對我既論點一無所知。

For the difference of "exist as the same time" and "co-existence", justin_lun once said the following, "God's power to know all is an ability, while free will is a promise. God can choose whether to use his ability or not, but he must keep his promise. Thus God need to give free will higher priority than knowing everything." Despite it is correct or not, we can see here free will and knowing everything is 2 unrelated things. The word "co-exist" require 2 things to work together for existence, if one is gone, so will another one. Thus we will say man and women "co-exist" together in this world, but we won't say human and snake co-exist in this world. Man and woman need each other to exist, but man and snake don't need each other. For the power to know all and free will, they simply exist as part of what God is, but they're unrelated, thus have no neccessity of one another for each one of their existence. It's importance because we'll need to clarify the property of both characteristic of God.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=coexistence

你知唔知乜0野係指鹿為馬?
你知唔知乜0野係掩耳賭鈴?

你竟然嘗試辯駁並存(coexist)同同時存在(exist simultaneously)有分別。講真﹐你若然做到既話﹐黑都可以變白﹐彎都可以變直喇。

再講﹐呢句The word "co-exist" require 2 things to work together for existence, if one is gone, so will another one 根本就係謊言 - 俾證據吧!

Even in the court of law, each lawyer only need to provide their own side of view, asking another side to clarify your own point is unthinkable.

係呀﹐但係我依家懷疑你完全冇消化到我0的point噃。我甚至存疑你究竟有冇睇到我既論點。我唔係要你clarify我既論點﹐而係要你講出你對我既論點有幾了解。叫你覆述只不過係搬字過紙﹐好難委你咩? 抑或你真係對我既論點一竅不通所以諸多推搪?

NOT all God are omniscient! In Greek mythology, Egypt, and other religions and countries who has more than one God in their believes, most of their Gods are NOT omniscient! It's wrong in basic concept to say all God are omniscient.

你知唔知乜0野係基本假設? 我既然討論緊一個唯神論既宗教(基督教)﹐當然就要假設只有基督教既神0架啦! 喺0甘既情況下﹐”All god” 都只係得一個咋嘛。如果冇唯神論既假設﹐我劈頭第一句就挑戰基督教既dogma啦!

silverxing﹐你又話你讀哲學既? 你真唔知定假唔知呀?

Second, in what way you can prove "No God that know all will warn Adam not to eat the fruit of knowledge"? Every basic information for logical analysis need to be completely true to start with. You can't provide even one bit of support for "No God that know all will warn Adam not to eat the fruit of knowledge"

呢個point有support, 就係全善(Omnibenevolence)。如果神知道亞當會食禁果而做佢出嚟﹐神就冇可能係全善(請參考justin_lun兄尾幾個帖)。

如果神實際上知亞當會食禁果但係扮唔知﹐佢就會擔上deceiver(誤導者)既罪命。

如果神實際上唔知亞當會食禁果﹐佢就冇可能係全知。

Last but not least, for A ∈ B, YOU are the one whose using it. Doesn't you need to know how it use? I'm only pointing out what you use wrong. Do you mean now I am responsible to explain everything in philosophy to you? and for what? to "prove I'm really know philosophy"? From what we have so far, you're the one making all the logical mistake here, what makes you qualify to judge how good my philosophy is? When you want to learn something from someone, the proper and decent way to do is ask NICELY!

哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈! 實在可笑。你講得一針見血﹐我就係要你"prove you really know philosophy"。我由用”∈”符號到link site解釋呢個符號點解同埋點解我0甘用都用0左幾個帖。你做唔到咩?

乜你寧願打五句去解釋點解你唔想解釋都唔寧願打一句去解釋清楚? 我對我既質疑越嚟越深信不疑。。。

再講﹐我喺呢個論壇上淨係計之前俾過既link都夠0西解釋”∈”符號既用法。講到learn something from someone﹐你又作出過乜0野知識上既供獻呢?

同你講0左0甘耐﹐請你俾證據你又唔俾﹐請你覆述你又唔覆﹐請你解釋你又唔解﹐真係好冇癮。你再唔攞出真才實學﹐唔好怪我請admin出嚟評評理。

silverxing

You can go ahead to ask the admin, cuz from the beginning. What I'm saying has NOTHING to do about what you argue. Let me say it one more time:

1. I'm only stating you cannot correctly repeat justin_lun's point. What you have do so far is keep saying I cannot repeat YOUR point, which has nothing to do with what I intended from the beginning. If you still can't listen, I'll say it again. I'm statine you cannot correctly repeat JUSTIN_LUN point, not YOUR point. Get it?

2. From the beginning, I already stated, "I HAVE NO INTENTION TO ARGUE RELIGIOUS PROBLEM WITH YOU, MY INTENTION IS TO STATE WHY IT'S IMPRACTICAL TO ASK OTHERS TO REPEAT YOUR POINT."  By your own words, you're doubting JUSTIN_LUN can't understand your point, that's why you ask JUSTIN_LUN to repeat your point. It has nothing to do with me. Let me say it again: IT'S JUSTIN_LUN YOU WANT TO REPEATING YOUR POINT, NOT ME, SILVERXING. I ONLY WANT TO TELL YOU IT'S WRONG TO REPEAT OTHERS POINT, NOT TO ARGUE RELIGIOUS PROBLEM WITH YOU. Understand?

3. I'M ONLY SAYING WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOUR LOGIC ANALSYIS, NOT TELLING YOU EVERYTHING I KNOW ABOUT PHILOSOPHY. From my reply, I already told you what's wrong in your analysis. Finding a philosophy website and posting a link has nothing to do whether you know philosophy or not. Even a highschool student who know nothing about philosophy can find those links. But from your application of the logical analysis, you're using them incorrectly. Even yourself admit that, and note that I'm the one applying the correct analysis technique to point out your mistake. YOU POST THE CORRECT WEBSITE BUT USING IT WRONG WHILE I POST NO WEBSITE BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE. Who's the one know better about philosophy here?